-Poaching is the illegal hunting, fishing, or eating of wild plants or animals contrary to local and international conservation and wildlife management laws. Violations of hunting laws and regulations are normally punishable by law and, collectively, such violations are known as poaching.

*It may be illegal and in violation because:-The game or fish is not in season; usually the breeding season is declared as the closed season when wildlife species are protected by law.-The poacher does not possess a license.-The poacher is illegally selling the animal or animal parts or plant for a profit.-The animal is being hunted outside of legal hours.-The hunter used an illegal weapon for that animal.-The animal or plant is on restricted land.-The right to hunt this animal is claimed by somebody.-The means used are illegal (for example, baiting a field while hunting quail or other animals, using spotlights to stun or paralyze deer, or hunting from a moving vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft).-The animal or plant is protected by law or that it has been listed as extinct or endangered (see for example the Endangered Species Act for the USA)-The animal or plant has been tagged by a researcher.---Note that only wild animals can be poached. Stealing or killing domestic animals is considered to be theft ("cattle rustling"), not poaching.http://en.wikipedia.org...

Whats that thing about hunters using an illegal weapon to kill an animal? Surely they should be prosecuted for possesing an illegal weapon, not for killing an animal with one. Who cares if you kill black rhino with a hunting rifle or a grenade launcher? not me.

"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"

At 6/3/2009 6:37:29 PM, Nik wrote:Whats that thing about hunters using an illegal weapon to kill an animal? Surely they should be prosecuted for possesing an illegal weapon, not for killing an animal with one. Who cares if you kill black rhino with a hunting rifle or a grenade launcher? not me.

Not an illegal weapon according to the law, but the laws/rules of gaming. It is an unfair advantage if you get to use the grenade launcher, it then becomes poaching instead of sport or game.

Note- I don't necessarily support what I'm saying in this topic, I'm just giving the other side.

Hehe, I understand what your saying but surely possesing a weapon at all is an unfair advantage? you dont see ducks, underneath fake islands with fake nude sunbathing girls on top, waiting patiently with hunting rifles to catch humans do you?

"If you could tell the world but one truth, I could convince it of a thousand lies"

At 6/3/2009 6:47:37 PM, Nik wrote:Hehe, I understand what your saying but surely possesing a weapon at all is an unfair advantage? you dont see ducks, underneath fake islands with fake nude sunbathing girls on top, waiting patiently with hunting rifles to catch humans do you?

The point about ducks and other weak animals like them are valid (and funny).

But when a human faces a rhino, elephant, or tiger, the human needs a gun. The human could surely not fight any of these animals without a gun. But if the human had a RPG against the animal, it would obviously be an unfair advantage.

Sports/games start out fair on both sides. It is unfair for the human to start out with a super-powerful unbeatable weapon.

Also, notice "hunting rifle"... because hunting is legal. A hunting rifle can not be automatic and is much less powerful than AK-47s, RPGs, grenade launchers, etc.

I'm against poaching if it is on private property, obviously, as well if it is in protected areas set up by governments. I do also think that the government, or even a private property owner, can and should set quotas on the amount of kills a hunter has, especially if it is in an area where the species is dying out, or where overhunting will cause an imbalance in the predator-prey relationship, ie., the annual seal hunt in eastern Canada allows for a certain quota of seals to be killed, but won't allow more over that quota in order to allow the seals to repopulate (for the next seal hunt) and so they're not wiped out.

Other situations though I find the regulations on hunting and fishing a little ridiculous and overstated by the various animal welfare groups, groups made up of members that don't really understand the way of life for hunters. In cases such as that, I can sympathize with the poachers.

-Poaching is the illegal hunting, fishing, or eating of wild plants or animals contrary to local and international conservation and wildlife management laws. Violations of hunting laws and regulations are normally punishable by law and, collectively, such violations are known as poaching.

*It may be illegal and in violation because:-The game or fish is not in season; usually the breeding season is declared as the closed season when wildlife species are protected by law.-The poacher does not possess a license.-The poacher is illegally selling the animal or animal parts or plant for a profit.-The animal is being hunted outside of legal hours.-The hunter used an illegal weapon for that animal.-The animal or plant is on restricted land.-The right to hunt this animal is claimed by somebody.-The means used are illegal (for example, baiting a field while hunting quail or other animals, using spotlights to stun or paralyze deer, or hunting from a moving vehicle, watercraft, or aircraft).-The animal or plant is protected by law or that it has been listed as extinct or endangered (see for example the Endangered Species Act for the USA)-The animal or plant has been tagged by a researcher.---Note that only wild animals can be poached. Stealing or killing domestic animals is considered to be theft ("cattle rustling"), not poaching.http://en.wikipedia.org...

I feel a personal obligation not to engage in any of the above. As for what people should or should not be allowed to do: maybe it could be argued that hunting a species to extinction is wrong, if the species is an important part of its ecology, or that overhunting should not be allowed where it is shown to represent a significant threat to the available game in the area. Its a matter of survival of the society versus individual caprice in that situation. If it can be argued that there is no correlation between hunting the animal out of existence and the continuation of society, it is not something that should be subject to societal control.

Now, if you actually believe in ideals like compassion, expanding on such an ideal may lead you to personally avoid conducting such activity out of fear of committing an act akin to genocide. That, however, is a personal moral choice and not one that is needed to be imposed for the good of all members of one's society.

An Unfair advantage? Every gun has advantages and disadvantages. The RPG? Single shot and takes time to reload. It is also slow so the animal can react, and is more effected by wind. It also explodes after a few seconds.

Ak 47 has a huge recoil and isn't accurate.

That said the advantage is always to humans. Unless you want to train an Army of animals, the advantage is always to humans. We had an advantage thousands of years ago hunting animals with spears. Should we fight them bare handed and risk dying?